Overview and implications
The Federal Court has dismissed an appeal from a Trade Marks Office decision refusing registration of CRV GLADIATOR FAMILY and CRV FAMILIA for caravans and related vehicles, finding both marks deceptively similar to an earlier stylised CR‑V mark owned by Honda Motor Co. Ltd for vehicles (Honda Mark). The decision shows how acronyms and vehicle naming conventions can lead consumers to see products as part of another brand’s family, even where additional words or stylisation are used to try to differentiate them.
To protect your trade marks, consider the steps below before you commit to a new brand:
- Stress‑test acronyms early. Acronyms used at the start of a mark should be assessed carefully at the clearance stage.
- Don’t rely on styling to do the heavy lifting. Hyphens, punctuation and modest stylisation may offer limited separation where marks are pronounced the same way.
- Consider the broader implications of sub‑brand architectures. If your mark includes an earlier mark, adding words, particularly to acronyms may make it look like a variant within a pre-existing brand family.
- Tailor your evidence. Industry shorthand or internal usage may not reflect how buyers understand a mark, particularly at the outset of a purchasing decision. Evidence should speak to consumers, not the industry.
Background to the appeal
CCMSM Commercial Pty Ltd as trustee for the CCMSM Commercial Trust (CCMSM) is a large Australian-owned caravan manufacturer trading as Crusader Caravans. CCMSM sought to register the following two trade marks:
- CRV GLADIATOR FAMILY; and
- CRV FAMILIA,
for caravans and related vehicles in class 12 (together, the CCMSM Marks).
The Trade Marks Office examined the CCMSM Marks and raised an objection under section 44 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Act), citing the earlier Honda Mark.
The Honda Mark had an earlier priority date, and it was not disputed that the respective goods overlapped.
In the Trade Marks Office, following an ex parte hearing, both applications were refused on 24 September 2024. CCMSM appealed that decision to the Federal Court, where Bennett J determined the dispute afresh (a hearing de novo).
The central question was whether the CCMSM Marks were substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the earlier Honda Mark. This is a familiar issue in trade mark law, arising in both registrability and infringement contexts, particularly where marks incorporate the same dominant element.
CCMSM's main arguments
CCMSM advanced several arguments in support of registration.
First, CCMSM submitted that the initialism "RV" is descriptive because it is commonly used in the industry to mean "recreational vehicle", so the shared element CRV should be given limited weight in the comparison.
Second, CCMSM argued that CRV should be discounted, leaving the distinctive elements GLADIATOR FAMILY and FAMILIA to distinguish its marks from the Honda Mark.
Third, CCMSM submitted that the visual differences between the marks were material. The Honda Mark is stylised and includes a hyphen, whereas the CCMSM Marks use plain block letters without a hyphen and incorporate additional words.
Fourth, CCMSM pointed to the high price of its caravans and submitted that purchasers of such goods would exercise a higher degree of care, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
Why the appeal failed
Bennett J approached the matter afresh and agreed with the Delegate: the CCMSM Marks are deceptively similar to the Honda Mark. Her Honour’s reasoning is summarised below.
1. Hyphens and stylisation did not distinguish the marks
The hyphen and stylisation of the Honda Mark carried little weight. CRV and CR‑V are pronounced in the same way, and minor visual differences were unlikely to be remembered by the notional buyer. Fine typographical distinctions are often overlooked when marks are encountered in the marketplace.
2. Acronyms and naming conventions mattered
Her Honour accepted that, in the automotive and caravan sectors, products are typically identified by a house brand, range name and model name. Against that backdrop, CRV in the CCMSM Marks would be understood as the range or house identifier. Because the Honda Mark comprised the same letters in the same order, the notional buyer could readily be caused to wonder whether the goods came from the same source. The additional words GLADIATOR FAMILY and FAMILIA were consistent with this naming convention and likely to be perceived as model names, rather than indicators of a different commercial origin. That impression was reinforced by the fact that each of the CCMSM Marks wholly incorporated the CR‑V element at the front.
3. Industry shorthand did not equate to consumer understanding
Although “RV” is commonly used within the caravan industry to mean “recreational vehicle”, her Honour was not persuaded that this rendered CRV descriptive. The element applied for was CRV, not RV, and there was little evidence that the notional buyer would understand CRV or CR‑V as descriptive. The notional buyer was not assumed to have specialist knowledge of industry shorthand, particularly at the outset of the purchasing process.
4. High price didn't prevent confusion
While her Honour accepted the purchase is a considered one, that did not eliminate the likelihood that some buyers would be caused to wonder about a common source. Her Honour found the same reasoning applied with equal force to CRV FAMILIA.
Her Honour concluded there was a real, tangible danger of deception or confusion. A notional buyer, with an imperfect recollection of the Honda Mark, would be caused to wonder whether caravans sold under the CCMSM Marks came from the same source. The appeal was dismissed.
This decision reinforces that modest visual differences and added words may not avoid refusal where the shared element remains dominant. Wholly contained marks are assessed case by case, here the Court was not persuaded that buyers would discount the shared CRV/CR‑V element, and treated the added words as model descriptors, heightening the risk of a brand‑family impression.
